```

[House Report 113-666]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

113th Congress 
 2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 Report
                                                                113-666
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 154

. 
  IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE TOM PETRI

                               __________

                               R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

 December 11, 2014.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed
                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
  Chairman                             Ranking Member
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania        PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana             TED DEUTCH, Florida

                              REPORT STAFF

              Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
             Deborah Sue Mayer, Director of Investigations
               Jackie M. Barber, Counsel to the Chairman
            Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Ranking Member

                      Christopher R. Tate, Counsel
                    Nadia A. Konstantinova, Counsel
                  C. Tucker Carr, Investigative Clerk
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                       Committee on Ethics,
                                 Washington, DC, December 11, 2014.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we herewith 
transmit the attached report, ``In the Matter of Allegations 
Relating to Representative Tom Petri.''
            Sincerely,
                                   K. Michael Conaway,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez,
                                           Ranking Member.

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
 I. INTRODUCTION......................................................1
II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT....2
III.BACKGROUND........................................................3

        A. THE COMMITTEE'S ADVISORY FUNCTION.....................     3
        B. REPRESENTATIVE PETRI'S INVESTMENTS....................     4
        C. OCE'S REFERRAL........................................     5
IV. FINDINGS..........................................................5
        A. REPRESENTATIVE PETRI'S CONTACT WITH THE COMMITTEE.....     5
        B. THE EFFECT OF REPRESENTATIVE PETRI'S CONSULTATIONS 
            WITH THE COMMITTEE STAFF.............................     6
 V. CONCLUSION........................................................9
VI. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C).....................10
APPENDIX A: REPORT AND FINDING OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
  ETHICS (Review No. 14-1891)....................................    11

                                                 House Calendar No. 154
113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     113-666

======================================================================

 
   IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE TOM PETRI

                                _______
                                

                           December 11, 2014

                                _______
                                

              Mr. Conaway, from the Committee on Ethics, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

    In accordance with House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b), 
the Committee on Ethics (Committee) hereby submits the 
following Report to the House of Representatives:

                            I. INTRODUCTION 

    On July 2, 2014, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) 
transmitted to the Committee a Report and Findings (OCE's 
Referral) regarding Representative Tom Petri. OCE reviewed 
allegations that Representative Petri or his congressional 
office improperly performed official acts on behalf of four 
companies in which he had a significant financial interest. OCE 
did not recommend that the Committee further review allegations 
related to his official actions related to two of the 
companies. OCE also found that with respect to his actions 
relating to the other two companies, in many instances 
Representative Petri sought and relied upon Committee advice. 
However, OCE's Referral found substantial reason to believe 
that Representative Petri did not seek Committee guidance in 
several specific instances, and improperly performed official 
acts on behalf of the two companies in which he had a financial 
interest.
    This Report, adopted by the Committee on December 9, 2014, 
resolves the allegations OCE transmitted on July 2, 2014. The 
Committee unanimously determined that it would be inequitable 
to issue a sanction to Representative Petri based on the facts 
of this matter. Over the course of several years, 
Representative Petri's staff proactively and repeatedly 
consulted with the Committee's staff on whether and how 
Representative Petri could lawfully and properly engage in 
official actions on behalf of entities in which he had a 
financial interest. Representative Petri or his office also 
consistently followed the informal advice and guidance they 
received from the Committee. OCE acknowledged in its Referral 
that Representative Petri did seek this guidance, but found 
that his efforts in this regard in several specific instances 
were unsatisfactory and incomplete. The Committee disagreed 
with that interpretation of the evidence. Representative Petri 
repeatedly sought guidance on substantially all matters under 
review, and should have been entitled to rely on that guidance, 
particularly in a matter where the rules governing the conduct 
require a fact-specific analysis, as is the case with the rules 
governing conflicts of interest in the House.
    Although the Committee acknowledges that its informal, 
staff-level advice is not a categorical shield from future 
adverse actions, such advice is nevertheless necessary to 
enable the House community to successfully navigate standards 
of conduct.\1\ Members and their staff are encouraged to 
diligently request the Committee's advice and, upon doing so, 
rely on the advice to engage in the vetted official actions. In 
this case, Representative Petri repeatedly sought advice from 
the Committee staff on the official actions in question, and 
appears to have substantially complied with that advice. The 
Committee concluded that, on these facts, Representative Petri 
was entitled to rely on the staff-level analysis of his conduct 
and their contemporaneous advice, and it would be inequitable 
to subject his conduct to an additional review at this later 
date. Therefore, the Committee will take no further action in 
this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Committee Rule 3(k) states that the Committee ``may take no 
adverse action in regard to any conduct that has been undertaken in 
reliance on a written opinion if the conduct conforms to the specific 
facts addressed in the opinion.'' See also Committee Rule 3(l) 
(``[i]nformation provided to the Committee by a Member, officer, or 
employee seeking advice may not be used as the basis for initiating an 
investigation . . . if such Member, officer or employee acts in good 
faith in accordance with the written advice of the Committee.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT 

    The Code of Ethics, section 5, provides that any person in 
government service should ``never discriminate unfairly by the 
dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether 
for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or his 
family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be 
construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance 
of his governmental duties.'' The House Ethics Manual notes 
that the Committee ``has cautioned all Members `to avoid 
situations in which even an inference might be drawn suggesting 
improper action.'''\2\ Additionally, the Ethics Manual cautions 
that when a Member considers taking official action that may 
affect his or her financial interest, such as ``sponsoring 
legislation, advocating or participating in an action by a 
House committee, or contacting an executive branch agency,'' 
the Member's decision to engage in this action requires ``added 
circumspection.''\3\ The Ethics Manual further urges a Member 
to contact the Committee for guidance to assist him or her with 
this decision.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Code of Ethics for Government Service para.5; House Ethics 
Manual at 27 (2008) (hereinafter Ethics Manual).
    \3\Ethics Manual at 237 (2008).
    \4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    House Rule XXIII, clause 3 states that a Member ``may not 
receive compensation and may not permit compensation to accrue 
to the beneficial interest of such individual from any source, 
the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence 
improperly exerted from the position of such individual in 
Congress.''
    Finally, House Rule XXIII, clauses 1 and 2, provide that a 
Member ``shall behave at all times in a manner that shall 
reflect creditably on the House,'' and ``shall adhere to the 
spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House.''

                            III. BACKGROUND 

  A.    THE COMMITTEE'S ADVISORY FUNCTION 

    Pursuant to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the Committee's 
nonpartisan staff is charged with ``providing information and 
guidance to Members, officers and employees of the House 
regarding any laws, rules, regulations, and other standards of 
conduct applicable to such individuals in their official 
capacities, and any interpretations and advisory opinions of 
the committee.''\5\ The Ethics Reform Act prohibits the 
Committee from initiating an investigation based on 
``information provided to the [Committee] by a Member, officer 
or employee of the House of Representatives when seeking advice 
regarding prospective conduct if such Member, officer or 
employee acts in accordance with the written advice of the 
committee.''\6\ The Committee formalized these requirements in 
its own rules, noting the procedures for obtaining a written 
advisory opinion, and confirming that it would ``take no 
adverse action in regard to any conduct that has been 
undertaken in reliance on a written opinion if the conduct 
conforms to the specific facts addressed in the opinion.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\2 U.S.C. Sec. 4711.
    \6\Id.
    \7\Committee Rule 3(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Written advisory opinions, with their specific guidelines 
for form, process, and due diligence,\8\ are only one method 
that the Committee's staff uses to give counsel to Members on 
the compliance of their prospective conduct. In addition to the 
more than 900 formal advisory opinions drafted by the 
Committee's staff during the previous Congress, the staff 
fielded more than 40,000 informal requests for guidance, 
including telephone calls, emails, and in-person requests for 
guidance on ethics issues during that two-year period.\9\ While 
the Committee's staff takes notes on these informal requests, 
the staff's notes are not intended to be a verbatim record of 
the dialogue and, especially where prepared years prior, will 
not be an exact transcript of the discussion. Instead, the 
notes kept by Committee staff are intended to give staff 
context as they advise the House community on ongoing matters, 
to assist the staff with providing consistent advice, and to 
refresh the staff's recollection should a matter require their 
attention at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\See, e.g, Committee Rule 3(d), 3(e), 3(g), 3(i).
    \9\See Comm. on Ethics, Summary of Activities: 112th Congress, H. 
Rept. 112-739, 112th Cong. 2d Sess at 1 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although informal staff-level guidance does not obtain the 
same protections as written advisory opinions, informal 
guidance is not purposeless. These daily dialogues between the 
House community and the Committee's staff are a vital part of 
the Committee's advisory function. The informal contact between 
the Committee staff and Members allows Members to take 
advantage of the Committee's guidance where an official action 
is too routine or simple for a formal written letter to be 
practical or, alternatively, where an official action requires 
a faster response than is afforded by the often time-consuming 
process of obtaining a formal advisoryopinion. If Members were 
unable to rely on this informal contact with the Committee to obtain 
advice on their day-to-day activities, they would be left without the 
full-time expert staff counsel required by the Ethics Reform Act, and 
would lack certainty about how their daily, official actions comply 
with the applicable rules and laws.

  B.    REPRESENTATIVE PETRI'S INVESTMENTS

    Representative Petri was first elected to the House of 
Representatives in 1979. He has served the 6th congressional 
district of Wisconsin ever since.
    OCE's Referral concluded that Representative Petri and his 
congressional office performed official actions on behalf of 
two companies in which he had a financial interest: Oshkosh 
Corporation (Oshkosh) and Manitowoc Company (Manitowoc).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\OCE also investigated allegations regarding actions taken by 
Representative Petri and his staff on behalf of Plum Creek Timber 
Company, but did not recommend further investigation of those actions, 
because all of those actions affected a large class of similarly 
situated companies, rather than Plum Creek Timber Company in 
particular. The Committee concurs in that recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oshkosh and Manitowoc are two large, publicly-owned 
companies headquartered in Representative Petri's congressional 
district. Oshkosh is a manufacturing company focusing in part 
on vehicles used in military applications. Manitowoc is a 
manufacturing company that makes cranes and foodservice 
equipment. Representative Petri purchased stock in both 
companies in 2006. Since that time, the value of his investment 
fluctuated, and at times has been in excess of $500,000 in 
Oshkosh, and $250,000 in Manitowoc.
    Much of Representative Petri's actions on behalf of Oshkosh 
concerned a contract awarded to Oshkosh in 2009 to produce 
vehicles from the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles for the 
United States Army. The losing bidders for that contract 
protested the contract award with the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO). At least some Members from the Texas 
congressional delegation interceded on behalf of one of those 
losing bidders, a Texas corporation, by sending a letter to the 
Secretary of Defense, as well as seeking legislative action on 
the Texas company's behalf. In response, Oshkosh sought 
intercession from the Wisconsin congressional delegation, 
including Representative Petri, to protect the contract award. 
As a result, Representative Petri took a number of official 
actions on Oshkosh's behalf with respect to the 2009 contract 
bid and relating to other issues.
    Representative Petri's casework for Manitowoc involved a 
2012 hardship exemption from diesel fuel regulations the 
company sought from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA). When Manitowoc contacted Representative Petri's office 
regarding the hardship exemption, his staff contacted the EPA 
by email and telephone seeking a status update on the process. 
Later, in August 2013, Representative Petri wrote to the EPA 
Regional Administrator, urging full consideration of 
Manitowoc's hardship exemption. That exemption is still under 
consideration by the EPA.\11\

  C.    OCE'S REFERRAL 

    OCE undertook a preliminary review of this matter on 
February 28, 2014. OCE voted to extend its review on March 28, 
2014, and The OCE Board voted to refer the matter to the 
Committee and adopted its Findings on June 27, 2014. The OCE 
Referral was transmitted to the Committee on July 2, 2014. OCE 
provided additional relevant documents in this matter to the 
Committee on September 30, 2014.
    The Committee published OCE's Referral on September 30, 
2014, and announced that it would continue its own review of 
the allegations contained in OCE's Referral pursuant to 
Committee Rule 18(a).
    With respect to the actual official actions taken by 
Representative Petri and his office on behalf of Oshkosh and 
Manitowoc, as well as Representative Petri's interest in those 
two firms, no facts were in dispute. Representative Petri and 
his staff stated that they had taken the actions alleged. 
Nevertheless, Representative Petri and his staff also stated 
that they had only taken those actions based on advice received 
from Committee staff.
    In support of this assertion, Representative Petri provided 
to OCE a letter sent to him by the Committee's Chief Counsel 
and Staff Director on May 21, 2014.\12\ This letter detailed 
the records of the Committee and its staff regarding the advice 
provided to Representative Petri about the matters in question. 
OCE reviewed that letter and additional documents provided by 
Representative Petri. OCE found that Representative Petri's 
consultations with the Committee staff were unsatisfactory and 
incomplete. Specifically, OCE found that, ``in several 
instances, advice was not sought or the advice provided was 
based on incomplete or inaccurate information.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\The May 21, 2014, letter responded to a request from 
Representative Petri that Committee staff share their guidance to him 
with OCE.
    \13\OCE Referral at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             IV. FINDINGS 

  A.    REPRESENTATIVE PETRI'S CONTACT WITH THE COMMITTEE 

    In an interview with OCE, Representative Petri's Chief of 
Staff stated that, over the course of five years, she 
repeatedly contacted the Committee staff for ethics guidance 
when Representative Petri considered taking an official action 
that involved Oshkosh.\14\ E-mail messages the Chief of Staff 
prepared contemporaneously with her consultations with the 
Committee staff reflect that she did, in fact, seek the 
Committee's informal staff-level guidance on a regular basis 
regarding Representative Petri's contemplated official actions 
related to Oshkosh. Each time the Chief of Staff asked the 
Committee staff to review an official action, the Committee 
staff ultimately approved it. The Chief of Staff's 
contemporaneous e-mail records document the type of information 
she shared with the Committee staff during their consultations. 
A review of these documents reveals that nearly every time the 
Chief of Staff sought staff-level guidance from the Committee, 
she reminded the Committee staff that Representative Petri 
owned stock in Oshkosh. On occasions when the proposed official 
action was a letter, the Chief of Staff requested that the 
Committee staff review drafts of the letter. And every time the 
Committee's staff dispensed advice, the Chief of Staff 
simultaneously documented that advice via e-mail to 
Representative Petri's congressional staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\As noted more fully below, it appears that Representative Petri 
and his staff did take official action on behalf of Oshkosh and 
Manitowoc in situations where they had not explicitly sought the advice 
of the Committee staff. However, the advice Representative Petri did 
receive, beginning in 2009, can be read to cover the vast majority of 
the relevant actions in this matter for which advice would have been 
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notwithstanding this evidence, the OCE's Referral notes 
that Representative Petri did not always disclose his financial 
interest when he took official action on behalf of Oshkosh. 
When asked during her OCE interview, the Chief of Staff stated 
that she did not ask the Committee staff why disclosures of 
stock ownership were required in some official actions but not 
in others. She stated that she ``looked at each instance based 
on what their [the Committee staff's] advice was for that. . . 
. If they'd said do it I would have done it as we did do when 
they said to do it.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\OCE Referral at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite this regular and consistent contact between 
Representative Petri's staff and the Committee staff, OCE 
identified five occasions on which Representative Petri's staff 
failed to contact the Committee staff for advice prior to 
acting. Specifically, the evidence suggests that Representative 
Petri's staff did not seek informal staff-level guidance advice 
prior to (1) Representative Petri's meetings with Oshkosh 
officials and Egyptian government representatives in 2006 and 
2008; (2) Representative Petri's December 9, 2009, telephone 
conversation with the Secretary of the Army; (3) Representative 
Petri's Chief of Staff's communications in November 2011 with 
the staff of the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit regarding 
truck weight limits; (4) Representative Petri's communications 
with the staff of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in 
July 2012 regarding Oshkosh's sale of vehicles to the United 
Arab Emirates; and (5) Representative Petri and his staff's 
efforts with respect to Manitowoc in February 2007, November 
2012, and August 2013.

  B.    THE EFFECT OF REPRESENTATIVE PETRI'S CONSULTATIONS WITH THE 
        COMMITTEE STAFF 

    The rules governing conflicts of interest require a fact-
specific analysis, and Members are encouraged to conduct that 
analysis with the guidance of the Committee's nonpartisan, 
professional staff. Although staff-level advice is not a 
categorical shield from future adverse actions by this 
Committee, such advice is nevertheless necessary to enable the 
House community to successfully navigate standards of 
conduct.\16\ Members and their staff are encouraged to 
diligently request the Committee's advice and, upon doing so, 
may rely on the advice to engage in the vetted official 
actions. The Committee reviewed the record in this case, and 
determined that Representative Petri repeatedly sought guidance 
on the matters under review, and that he substantially complied 
with that guidance. Representative Petri should be entitled to 
rely on that guidance for such fact-specific analysis. 
Therefore, the Committee declines to decide at this time 
whether, in the absence of that advice, the actions would 
constitute a violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Committee Rule 3(k) states that the Committee ``may take no 
adverse action in regard to any conduct that has been undertaken in 
reliance on a written opinion if the conduct conforms to the specific 
facts addressed in the opinion.'' See also Committee Rule 3(l) 
(``[i]nformation provided to the Committee by a Member, officer, or 
employee seeking advice may not be used as the basis for initiating an 
investigation . . . if such Member officer or employee acts in good 
faith in accordance with the written advice of the Committee.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OCE, when confronted with Representative Petri's evidence 
of consultation with the Committee staff, examined that 
consultation to determine whether it completely and accurately 
disclosed the facts of his proposed actions. This is a proper 
avenue of inquiry. Neither formal advice from the Committee nor 
informal staff-level guidance will suffice to protect a Member 
when that advice is based on inaccurate facts, or when that 
advice endorses a course of action fundamentally different from 
the course actually taken. Nevertheless, the Committee believes 
that OCE may have failed to consider some evidence in its 
proper context, and mistakenly considered some other evidence, 
when it found that Representative Petri did not fully and 
accurately disclose the facts of his proposed actions.
    OCE relied, in part, on a letter the Committee's Chief 
Counsel and Staff Director sent to Representative Petri on May 
21, 2014, detailing the records maintained by Committee staff 
regarding advice it provided to Representative Petri on these 
matters from 2009 through 2013.\17\ These records, as noted 
above, are not a verbatim record of the communication between 
the Committee's staff and a Member's staff. The notes kept by 
Committee staff are intended to give staff context as they 
advise the House community on ongoing matters, to assist the 
staff with providing consistent advice, and to refresh the 
staff's recollection should a matter require their attention at 
a later date. In fact, the informality of these notes is one of 
the differences between staff-level guidance and formal 
advisory opinions, which have a more robust memorialization of 
the facts surrounding a proposed action. But in this case, the 
notes of Committee staff are not the only evidence pertaining 
to the advice Representative Petri received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\See OCE Referral at Ex. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, OCE found that Representative Petri's staff 
improperly represented to the Committee staff that the October 
9, 2009, letter would not specifically mention Oshkosh when, in 
fact, the letter did name the company. On this issue, OCE's 
finding was based on the Committee's May 21, 2014, letter to 
Representative Petri, in which it memorialized its staff's 
notes. But the context of the October 9, 2009, letter itself 
makes it unlikely that the Committee staff's notes accurately 
reflected the nature of the letter. Because that letter was 
about a bid protest against a contract won by Oshkosh, it does 
not stand to reason that the letter would not mention Oshkosh. 
Moreover, even if it did not explicitly mention Oshkosh, given 
the contract in question and the authors of the letter, the 
company's identity would be readily apparent. Finally, on a 
number of other occasions, Representative Petri sought advice 
from the Committee staff on correspondence that did explicitly 
name Oshkosh, and took no pains to hide it. Suggesting that he 
hid that fact this one time appears inconsistent with his 
course of dealing.
    OCE also found that at times, Representative Petri 
disclosed his ownership of Oshkosh stock in some correspondence 
with third parties, and failed to disclose it in other 
correspondence. But the Committee staff approved the precise 
wording of some of that correspondence, at times recommending 
disclosure and at other times not recommending it. It appears 
that Representative Petri acted only in response to that 
advice.
    Finally, as noted above, OCE found no evidence that 
Representative Petri or his staff contacted the Committee or 
its staff for advice with respect to five discrete issues. This 
may be true. As a threshold matter, however, it is not a 
violation of the rules not to seek advice from the Committee or 
its staff.
    The lack of a requirement to seek advice notwithstanding, 
in all five circumstances, the Committee believes that either 
the conduct was consistent with the Committee staff's 
previously issued advice, or the conduct was not of the sort 
that would raise concerns about conflicts of interest. The 
first action--Representative Petri's telephone call--was one of 
many quite similar contacts for which Representative Petri and 
his staff had sought informal staff-level guidance repeatedly 
and contemporaneously. The Committee does not expect, once 
Members, officers, and employees have received and comprehended 
advice received from the Committee or its staff, that they will 
need to call back for duplicative and redundant conversations 
about the same topic. The same analysis applies with equal 
force to the simple status check performed when Representative 
Petri's staff contacted the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
    With respect to the truck weight limits, no evidence exists 
to suggest that this dialogue requested a specific allowance 
for Oshkosh's subsidiary, but rather that it affected the 
entire industry. The Chief of Staff noted that, ``my 
understanding is this wasn't just Oshkosh, it was in general 
the fire and emergency vehicle association, the whole 
community. . . . I think it affected the emergency vehicle 
industry.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\OCE Referral at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, with respect to the meetings with Egyptian 
government representatives, these meetings apparently did not 
discuss Oshkosh business or Egyptian contracting opportunities 
specifically. In another case, the Committee decided that, 
where there was no indication that the Member received a 
financial benefit from congressional testimony provided by a 
business colleague, the conflicts of interest rules did not 
condemn such action.\19\ So too is the case here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\See Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of 
Representative Sam Graves, H. Rept. 111-320, 111th Cong. 1st Sess. at 
17 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And, while the contact with EPA for Manitowoc involved a 
different company facing a different issue, the contact 
amounted to a single letter and a status check, similar in many 
ways to Representative Petri's work for Oshkosh, only less 
substantial.
    OCE was correct to consider potential flaws in 
Representative Petri's consultations with the Committee and its 
staff, because substantial compliance with those consultations 
protected Representative Petri from a substantive review of his 
conduct. However, in light of all the available evidence, the 
Committee concluded that Representative Petri's actions related 
to Manitowoc substantially conformed to advice he received from 
the Committee staff, and that while not entitled to a rule-
based safe harbor for such conformity, it would be inequitable 
to punish him when he relied on that advice. Taken together, 
the concerns OCE identified with Representative Petri's 
consultations are not sufficient to remove this inequity. The 
Committee notes, however, that the more comprehensive and 
consistent one's consultation with the Committee or its staff, 
the more protection the Committee can offer in response to 
actions related to that consultation. As stated above, the 
Member is personally responsible for identifying that he may 
have a conflict of interest. The Member must then exercise due 
diligence to collect and provide to the Committee accurate and 
complete information to enable the Committee to appropriately 
vet the issue and render advice.

                             V. CONCLUSION

    The Committee's nonpartisan staff handles, on average, over 
50 informal requests for advice each day of the year. In the 
last Congress, the Committee fielded more than 40,000 informal 
requests for guidance. This is in addition to the other work of 
the Committee--approving travel requests, issuing formal 
advisory opinions, and investigating matters like the one that 
makes up the subject of this Report. The informal advice is no 
less important than the rest of these activities. Such advice 
requires Members and staff to provide the Committee staff with 
complete and accurate disclosures of facts and proposed action. 
Where advice-seekers do not provide complete and accurate 
disclosure, they should not expect the Committee's advice to 
shield them from further inquiry.
    In this case, the supporting documents and other evidence 
show that Representative Petri repeatedly sought guidance from 
the Committee staff and, as evidenced by the contemporaneous 
email messages, engaged in a substantially complete and 
accurate--albeit imperfect--level of disclosure in seeking such 
informal advice. Representative Petri or his office also 
consistently followed the informal advice and guidance they 
received from the Committee. The Committee concluded that, on 
these facts, Representative Petri was entitled to rely on the 
staff-level analysis of his conduct and their contemporaneous 
advice, and his conduct appears to have substantially complied 
with the staff's guidance. Therefore, it would be inequitable 
to subject his conduct to an additional review at this later 
date, and the Committee will take no further action in this 
matter.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Representative Petri is retiring from the House at the 
conclusion of this Congress, and had announced his intention to retire 
several months before the Committee receive the referral from OCE. 
While it is not always possible for the Committee to conclude its 
inquiries into allegations before a Member departs from the House (thus 
depriving the Committee of jurisdiction), the Committee does attempt to 
do so in every case. In this matter, there were not significant facts 
in dispute, conflicting witness testimony, or a sizeable volume of 
documents to review. Moreover, the supporting documents provided to the 
Committee by OCE included a substantial record of consistent efforts by 
Representative Petri or his official staff to seek--and follow--the 
Committee's informal advice and guidance. After receiving those 
supporting documents, the Committee was able to resolve this matter in 
just over two months. In addition, the Committee appreciates 
Representative Petri's cooperation with the Committee's investigation, 
which also contributed to its swift resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           VI. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C) 

    The Committee made no special oversight findings in this 
Report. No budget statement is submitted. No funding is 
authorized by any measure in this Report.
```